[ RadSafe ] " Study Uncovers Bacteria's Worst Enemy "

[jjcohen]

Fred,
    Thanks for the citations. Once I determined that they were really serious (i.e. not satirical websites), I was left with the following impressions:
  1.. For organic materials bioremediation might make some sense 
  2.. For inorganics, it  makes very little sense (the cure seems worse than the problem), and 
  3.. For radioactivity, it makes no sense at all
Please correct me if I'm wrong.     Jerry Cohen


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fred Dawson 
  To: jjcohen ; Jaro ; multiple cdn ; RADSAFE 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:13 AM
  Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " Study Uncovers Bacteria's Worst Enemy "


  Bioremediation includes phytoremediation the links below gives some information about how it works

  http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/phytoremediation/

  http://www.aehs.com/journals/phytoremediation/

  Fred Dawson


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "jjcohen" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
  To: "Jaro" <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca>; "multiple cdn" <cdn-nucl-l at mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca>; "RADSAFE" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
  Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " Study Uncovers Bacteria's Worst Enemy "


  >    I'm afraid I don't understand how bioremediation of radioactive
  > contamination works.
  > Certainly the bacteria don't transmute radinuclides to a less toxic form via
  > some nuclear
  > reaction. Do the bacteria selectively absorb radioactivity? If so, do the
  > bacteria somehow
  > transport the radioactivity to a less sensitive area? Otherwise, what the
  > advantage of
  > having bacterially absorbed radioactivity just sitting there. Does it
  > somehow become
  > less radiotoxic?
  >   Could it possibly be that bioremediation is just another government
  > sponsored
  > program to address the problem regardless of whether or not it might be
  > effective?
  >